Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Defences to Negligence - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Chandran
      - conflicting views as to whether it can be a complete (100%) defence
        
        YES
        
        Jayes v IMI Ltd
        
        NO
        
        Pitts v Hunt
        
        Anderson v Newham College of Higher Educatio
      - 'last opportunity rule' overruled
      - effect on vicarious liability
        
        Silverlink Trains Ltd v Collins-Williamson
    - - 1) Fault
        
        C must have been partly at fault in bringing about their own injury
        
        reasonable standard applies , subject to:
        
        any characteristics that would be taken into account in ordinary negligence evaluation
        
        Gough v Thorne
        
        Jackson v Murray
        
        Stoddart v Perucca
        
        Ellis v Kelly
        
        any emergency circumstances in which C is placed by D's breach
      - 2) Causation
        
        must be a causal link between C's contributory negligence and injury
        
        similar to but for
        
        cause injury not accident
        
        Froom v Butcher
        
        if C's injury would have certainly happened anyway, NO contributory negligence
        
        Beasley v Alexander
      - 3) Apportionment
        
        comparative assessment which is fact specific
        
        McPherson v Smith
        
        Stoddart v Perucca
        
        Jackson v Murray
        
        apportionment >50% unlikely in many circumstances
      - 4) Reduction
        
        reduction in damages which is just and equitable
        
        no de minimis
        
        some areas set by precedent
        
        Froom v Butcher
        
        uncooperative patients
        
        Gouldsmith v Mid-Staffordshire General Hosp NHS Trust
        
        unlikely to be responsible for own harm
- - - - Imperial Chemical Industries v Shatwell
    - - 1) Appreciation
        
        C was in a position to know of and to appreciate the risk of injury posed by D's activities
        
        specific risks
        
        Morris v Murray
        
        sporting contests
        
        Watson v British Boxing Board
        
        Woolridge v Sumner
        
        subjective or objective?
        
        Ashton v City of Liverpool Young Men’s Christian Association
      - 2) Consent
        
        C voluntarily consented to the specific risk of the injury that occurred (expressly or impliedly)
        
        absence of compulsion complete ignorance
      - 3) Preserve the duty
      - 4) Exceptions
        
        defence must not be barred by law
- - - - mental
      - physical
      - forgoing treatment
    - - not clear whether to use Bolam or Montgomery